Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Stevens v. Yusuff, 99-60340 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 99-60340 Visitors: 23
Filed: Apr. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-60340 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60340 Conference Calendar JOHN W. STEVENS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF; MIKE MOORE, Respondents-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:99-CV-86-BrS - April 14, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John W. Stevens, federal prisoner #86451-071, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U
More
                             No. 99-60340
                                  -1-

                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                              No. 99-60340
                          Conference Calendar



JOHN W. STEVENS,

                                            Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF; MIKE MOORE,

                                            Respondents-Appellees.

                          --------------------
             Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Mississippi
                        USDC No. 5:99-CV-86-BrS
                          --------------------
                             April 14, 2000

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     John W. Stevens, federal prisoner #86451-071, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.        The

district court dismissed Stevens’s petition for lack of subject-

matter jurisdiction.    Stevens has not argued this jurisdictional

issue on appeal; accordingly, he has abandoned any argument that

the dismissal was erroneous.     See United States v. Heacock, 
31 F.3d 249
, 258 (5th Cir. 1994).    We DISMISS the appeal as

frivolous.     See Yohey v. Collins, 
985 F.2d 222
, 225 (5th Cir.

1993); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

     *
        Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer